Re: loop manufacturers

[matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias)]

>At 10:16 PM 10/17/96 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>If I was sitting on the fence, and knew that Oberheim was to abandon the
>>Echoplex, why would you buy something with as many glitches and you all
>>havementioned.  It is clear that with the market share of the Jamman and 
>a
>>few knudges, software/hardware updates and development are more possible
>>>>by Lex.
>
>Sorry Paul, Lexicon abandoned the Jamman some time ago. I think they still
>sell them, but so far as I know, there are no upgrades or Jamman II's on 
>the
>horizon. Jon Durant has lamented this for some time, and some well known
>endorsers have jumped ship as a result.

To be fair: this probably means that Lex still gives full assistance in
terms of service, while Oberheim might even close down completely.

>Software upgrades are more likely with the Echoplex actually, because
>Matthias owns and develops the software, Gibson just licenses it. If
>anything, Oberheim's continued existence makes it a bit harder for the
>upgrade to happen since some old contract problems need to be resolved
>first. Oberheim's demise would mean Matthias would be free to sell it to
>whoever he likes. However, Oberheim's demise would mean that the number of
>echoplex units on the earth would remain finite for the forseeable future.
>
>So things don't look rosy in any direction, really.
>
>I want to join Jon Durant's ongoing call to action about this. There is 
>very
>little support at any manufacturer for looping products. The ones that 
>tried
>have lost money and gave up quickly. A big part of the reason for this is
>that there has never been any coherent community of users to demand
>products, or for manufacturers to market their product to.
>
>Hopefully this list can be the beginnings of such a community. I hope we 
>can
>discuss and develop the art here, get others interested in listening and
>creating loop music, and consequently be better able to encourage
>manufacturers to create the sorts of products that are useful to us.
>
>And thanks for kicking the list out of that tedious hardware discussion. I
>get bored with that sort of thing too, since I've been doing it for a 
>living
>for quite some time now. The more abstracted, philosophical discussions 
>are
>much more interesting to me. Why we use the tool, what we use it for, 
>rather
>than the tool itself. There is certainly room for tool discussions here, 
>and
>it is relevent since looping is a hardware dependant art, but if that's 
>all
>we do it gets a bit dull. Personally I would have chosen a more positive
>approach to the problem, but your way seems to have worked.


Very exactly this, Kim. Thank you.

Matthias